War on terrorism

[Buzz]

[glow=red,2,300]No Dennis your not ranting, merely stating your views on this discussion
The sad thing is, no matter what "war" we have spoken about here, countless millions have died throughout the years, for what? a disagreement? a point of view by one or more individuals? greed? dislike of another nation? hatred of another persons colour?
It doesnt matter what the catalyst for such wars were, the sad fact remains the future holds many more wars, and millions more will die! there is nothing we can do about this as its part of the human psyche, or can we? will there ever be a point in time where people, no matter what race, religion, or colour can turn around and say enough is enough?
Who knows? not me, you?


Another name for a terrorist is a freedom fighter, from another point of view, are we not just terrorists?[/glow]

[Rik-[FD]]

Will we ever be free of war? An interesting question. I believe we will but I also think that's a long way off. For it to happen, there are a lot more "Iraqs" to fight. Where there is oppression, there will always be revolution. To be controversial, I also think that to avoid wars in the future, democracy possibley needs to be looked at and rethought a bit. It worries me that groups such as the BNP and Shin Fein can get into positions of power. How should it be changed? I don't know. Perhaps democracy itself doesn't need to change but we do?

I would fight for my freedom but am I a terrorist? No, I'm not. I would not plant bombs or crash planes deliberately targetting civillians. And I certainly wouldn't shoot primary school kids after keeping them locked up at gun point for days.

I understand what you are saying but there is a bing difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist who does what he/she does in the name of freedom.

[©4M4|3ÖИ]

[glow=green,2,300]DECLARATION

Make no mistake about it, ‘Terrorists’ are nothing more, nor nothing less, - then the ‘Cowardly Weapons’ of the ‘Cowardly Nations’ which ‘Support’ and ‘Sanction’ them! There is no effective and efficient way to wage a war against ‘Terrorists’, and ‘Terrorism’, which will provide a ‘Prudent Victory’ from an external position! To achieve a ‘Quick’ and ‘Lasting Victory’, …….. Terrorists ‘Must’ be stopped from ‘WITHIN’!

Therefore, …………………



USA MUST WAGE A ‘WAR OF RAGE’!

The Great Eagle’s ‘Nest’ has been attacked!!! The stealth grace of her soaring wings, providing comfort and aid for the entire world, must ‘End’! For a ‘Season’, perhaps ‘Two’, - she must become as her enemy, if she is to return to who she was! She must become the ‘Warmonger’ of which she has been so unjustly accused by her enemies; - and the entire world should pray that she does not acquire a taste for blood. ‘She Must Wage a War Of Rage’! She must loudly ‘Shriek’ her ferocious battle cry for ‘Retribution’ and ‘Vengeance’ in her agonizing pain! She must swoop down upon ‘ALL’ her enemies and those who have defiled her, with ‘Mightily Flapping Wings’, ‘Sharpened Talons’, and a ‘Devouring Beak’! She must make the entire world tremble with ‘Much Fear’ and ‘Great Trepidations’, as she avenges her attacked nest! ‘Godlike’ in her ‘Creation’, - ‘Godlike’ in her ‘Existence’, - she must be ‘Godlike’ in her ‘Retribution’! There are ‘No Innocent Ones’ within her ‘Enemy Nations’! In one horrific swoop of ‘Nuclear Holocaust’, she must turn Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan into obliterated wastelands, - then claim the oil fields beneath the ‘Glowing Green Terrain’ as her own property, - in the form of ‘Spoils Of War’! She must fiercely attack Jerusalem, - then turn what remains of the ‘Empty Nation’ over to Israel! The ‘Taliban’ must be ‘Totally Eradicated’, to remain only a bad memory in history. The ‘Great Eagle’ must leave a wake of destruction behind the path of her aggression, such as the world has never before seen or heard of. Her ‘Retribution’ must be so ‘Merciless’ and ‘Terrible’, -so that, for untold generations to come, her enemies will ‘Shudder’ and ‘Tremble’ with ‘Fear’ at the mere thought of attacking her, - and so much so that, - they ‘Themselves’ will ‘Uproot’ and ‘Destroy’ their ‘Own Terrorists’, - from ‘WITHIN’!!!

THUS, - TERRORISM WOULD BE ENDED FOREVER!

Footnote:
But alas, - generations of the Great Eagle’s ‘Magnanimity’ and ‘Benevolence’, will in all probability keep the above from happening; - and if so, - a ‘Prolonged War’ against ‘Terrorism’, spanning ‘Many Years’, with ‘Thousands’ of ‘Future Casualties’ will prevail. If ‘Terrorism’ is not stopped ‘NOW’ – future attacks of ‘Terrorism’ will continue to rear its ‘Cowardly Head’ in many insidious forms, including ‘Chemical’ and ‘Biological’ warfare, – And ‘Freedom’s Way Of Life - Will Be Gone Forever’!

Regrettably,
R. Glenn “God Bless America”!!!

(Fortunately, - ‘Time-wise’, - it is ‘Never Too Late’, to implement the above ‘War Of Rage’!)



PS: (If this isn't the correct thread, move this please) All of this is Courtesy of Dennis...!![/glow]

[Rik-[FD]]

Sounds very KKK / BNP etc. to me.

[-(aaK)- Nav]

War shall never end. Our very nature is too wage it. There are those who need such things to gain power, prestige, and excel themselves by it. War, fighting, terrorism, it is but a smokescreen for these people. And to my great sadness, this band of fools are often those in power. Power corrupts as they say, but in my veiw, the corruption is always there, it just needs a said spark to turn a small blaze into a ravaging firestorm.

You wish for an end to war? You wish for peace? You wish for nothing but a shadow of a conceptual harmony. As long as we as a species exist, peace cannot, purely as we are architects of our own demise.

Although there are those who see past the simple notions of the good and the bad guys, those people are too few in number to make a difference.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
--Dwight Eisenhower 1953 speech

So long as there are men there will be wars
--Albert Einstein

[Rik-[FD]]

There was an interesting end to Season 4 of Angel (the Buffy spin-off for those of you that don't know) that kinda fits in with this discussion. Sorta spoiler coming up so stop reading if you haven't watched season 4 and think you might at some point.












Basically, a power came to Earth and was in the process of enslaving the world. Every now and again, this power ate a handful of people but everyone was happy. Everyone was basically being brainwashed and controlled by this power but caused world peace, the police were pointless and as I said everyone was happy. Until our hero comes along and destroys the power and frees humanity. Much to his annoyance though, it is his long standing enemy who comes up to him and says thanks, you just ended world peace.

The question is, what price would you pay for peace? Is 6-10 people every couple of days and a lack of choice over major issues worth it?

[Buzz]

[glow=red,2,300]I dont think anyone got where I was coming from when I made that remark b4 about are we terrorists?
What I suppose I meant was in the eyes of uninformed or illerate people we really do seem to be.
Think about it, we invade country's (UK & USA) without permission from the UN, we then proceed to blow up said country, with all the firepower we can muster, which to be honest is fairly considerable nowadays, and who do we blow up? not the people we are after, but innocent women, children and men, therefore I put it again.
Are we not terrorists ourselves??
Are we not bringing terror into the lives of people?
Is it no wonder a losing battle is being fought when all we do is the aforementioned?

And I'm sorry to say that there is no difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter apart from a point of view, what we call terrorists are on another day our freedom fighters.........Bin Laden ring a bell?
And before anyone jumps down my throat about bringing his name up, think back to when the USSR occupied afghanistan, who did the USA turn to??? was Bin Laden a terrorist then or merely a freedom fighter??
see what I mean about points of view?[/glow]

[Rik-[FD]]

Might think of a more in-depth reply later but for now, because I'm pressed for time, I'll just look at the Bin-Laden bit.

Bin-Laden was a freedom fighter. He attacked the occupying Russian forces. He became a terrorist when he began deliberately targetting civilians. That is where the difference is. All would agree that any civilian casualties are a terrible thing but there is a difference between trying not to kill civilians and targetting them. Yes, the 9/11 plane that hit the Pentagon could fall into the freedom fighter bracket but those that hit the twin towers don't. They are strictly in the realms of the terrorist.

I do agree with your point about us invading without UN backing but I do remember thinking at the time "how long are they going to keep twiddling their thumbs. How many more 'last chances' are they going to give him?"

And as a point of law, people seem to forget that we were still technically "at war" with iraq since the original gulf war...the cease fire did not constitute an end to the war so on that basis, we were still within our rights to "continue" the original action which was backed by the UN. Particularly as Sadam broke many of the agreements upon which that cease fire was based. This is a point that was mentioned a couple of times during the build up to GWII but seemed to be brushed over very quickly by the media who seemed more interested in how many people were against it.

[Buzz]

-(aaK)-FD said:

He became a terrorist when he began deliberately targetting civilians. That is where the difference is.

[glow=red,2,300]Ok lets take this down this road then, read this:

In 1945, Arthur Harris decided to create a firestorm in the medieval city of Dresden. He considered it a good target as it had not been attacked during the war and was virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns. The population of the city was now far greater than the normal 650,000 due to the large numbers of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army.

On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 35,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 100,000.


Would this make the British society at the time, freedom fighters or terrorists? A better example of indiscriminate killing I dont think you will find.[/glow]


[glow=red,2,300]Margaret Freyer was living in Dresden during the firestorm created on 13th February, 1945.

The firestorm is incredible, there are calls for help and screams from somewhere but all around is one single inferno.

To my left I suddenly see a woman. I can see her to this day and shall never forget it. She carries a bundle in her arms. It is a baby. She runs, she falls, and the child flies in an arc into the fire.

Suddenly, I saw people again, right in front of me. They scream and gesticulate with their hands, and then - to my utter horror and amazement - I see how one after the other they simply seem to let themselves drop to the ground. (Today I know that these unfortunate people were the victims of lack of oxygen). They fainted and then burnt to cinders.

Insane fear grips me and from then on I repeat one simple sentence to myself continuously: "I don't want to burn to death". I do not know how many people I fell over. I know only one thing: that I must not burn.




Members of the RAF bombing crews became increasingly concerned about the morality of creating firestorms. Roy Akehurst was a wireless operator who took part in the raid on Dresden.

It struck me at the time, the thought of the women and children down there. We seemed to fly for hours over a sheet of fire - a terrific red glow with thin haze over it. I found myself making comments to the crew: "Oh God, those poor people." It was completely uncalled for. You can't justify it.


Winston Churchill, memorandum to Air Marshall Arthur Harris (28th March 1945)

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing material out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction.


Is there a more accurate description of terrorism in action?[/glow]

[Rik-[FD]]

Indeed, your description does read as an act of terrorism and I'm willing to take your description as fact because I don't know enough about it. However, WWII was not at the crux of the point I thought you were trying to make. I would say however that as I recall (and this is just from my bad memory) Dresden was a heavy industrial city involved in the manufacture of the German's millitary machines. This makes the city itself a valid target although it sounds as though even considering the lack of targetting systems in the day, more precise bombing could have taken place.

Would that happen today? No, it wouldn't. If we were terrorists, our rules of engagement in Iraq would not be getting UK and US soldiers killed. I don't think Bin Laden is telling his "freedom fighters" that they must first be fired upon, they must then be able to identify the target shooting at them and that they must have a clear line of fire before they can shoot back....do you?

[Buzz]

[glow=red,2,300]Yes I know deviated slightly from my point, but it was just enhance my original post, and that is no matter whether we have rules of engagment or not, we do bring terror to others,whether deliberatly or not, therefore we ourselves can be viewed by others as being terrorists, again it all depends on your point of view.
Could it happen today you said? I havent got a accurate number of civilian casualties from Iraq, but it outstrips the coalition forces put together, it lies somewhere between 14000 - 16000 at the minute, yes I know these deaths are not all down to the coalition forces.
Now before anyone says its the price of war, yes I agree sadly innocents do get caught up in conflicts, but again I state that we can be viewed as being terrorists ourselves[/glow]

[Rik-[FD]]

Yes, I agree that others probably view us as terrorists although having said that, I can't remember anyone actually refering to us as that....evil empire, war criminals and stuff like that (more at the US than us) yes but not terrorists.

However, your original statement said

Another name for a terrorist is a freedom fighter, from another point of view, are we not just terrorists?

which reads to me like you're saying we ARE terrorists from another's point of view rather than we SEEM like terrorists from another's point of view. A big difference...after all, the Devil would probably refer to God as evil.

[Buzz]

[glow=red,2,300]Now your just being pedantic
Not got time for a full reply, have to get off to work, however yes I do suppose it looks that way when you first read it, but to others are we not terrorists, have I not just given a sound case for why others can view us as such?[/glow]

[Priest]

[glow=blue,2,300]You do make a valid point and to an extent I agree with you buzz, however, i will make this point,


in current engagements U.S. and U.K. / coalitiion forces do not and I repeat (DO NOT! deliberately attack enmasse civilian targets, if U.S. forces did (for example the Iraqi city Faluja yea I probably misspelled it, if we (the U.S.) did not want to minimize civilian casualities we would have gone in the city from the start and shelled, bombed, abd blasted the place off the map to rid our selvs from the insurgants hideing out there and the froces of the cleric.

Now I'm going to open a can of worms here, so buckle in folks,

You mentioned Dresdin, right?

I have to agree that the Allied forces uesr a little overkill there.

Have you seen any pictures of London during the Battle of Brittain, that was an assault on a civilian populas, it was intended to "break the spirit of the Brittish ppl and turn the tide of war.

Now Dresdin as stated previously was an industrial city that produced materal for the German war effort.

now in that assault as I said was overkill.

The only target a terrorist has and uses is civilian, WTC, Madrid, the Tokyo subway attack.

In none of those attacks was there a military target, and no formal military action was launched to initiate those attacks

You see civilian losses have always occured in war, and knowing how horrifing war is, there will be no end till governments, rulers and madmen look for other ways to settle disagreements.

It is not the civilian, or soldier that start wars, it is left to them to survive them when they occure, and pray that there will not be another with in their life time.

A freedom fighter fights against an occuping force, a terrorist targets civilians to push a politial or religous ideals on others because they feel it is their duty, they do not want a full conflice againse a standing army, so they rarely target them, like the U.S. Marine Post in Beiruit, Libia int the erly '80s

I served in the U.S. army and I still have several friends and relatives in the armed forces, at no time have I ever thought of myself or them as terrorists.

I never walked up to a market place and unloaded my ammo belt or grenades into a civilian area with no reguard to the ppl.

That is what makes the difference.


"To provide peace, prepair for war"
unknown, however I will endevor to find the quote author
[/glow]

[Rik-[FD]]

-(aaK)- said:

[glow=red,2,300]Now your just being pedantic
Not got time for a full reply, have to get off to work, however yes I do suppose it looks that way when you first read it, but to others are we not terrorists, have I not just given a sound case for why others can view us as such?[/glow]

No, you gave a sound reason as to why people could have viewed us as such in 194x.